Independent public-interest researchEvidence verified through September 2, 2026
← All updates

County tables flawed data-center resolution after strong community input

Bastrop County Commissioners Court tabled Item E.4 on August 10 after strong public testimony and written community input challenged language that could understate tools the County already has. Lost Pines Watch agrees with that criticism and has corrected its earlier guidance: residents were right to oppose adoption of the draft as written. The next ask is not a vague declaration of powerlessness; it is a legally reviewed, targeted use of existing fire-safety, BESS, public-health, infrastructure, records, and incentive authority while preserving the case for stronger state legislation. New source material includes Nick Lealos's working draft, LIV's written comments, Austin County's signed BESS and data-center order, KVUE's meeting report, KXAN's interview with Earth Native founder Dave Scott, a GIS-confirmed shared property line, and Dave's August 11 view across that boundary. For the August 13 BISD meeting, residents may address Pacifico during Open Forum even though it is not on the agenda; trustees cannot deliberate or vote on the unposted subject, but they may provide facts, state existing policy, or propose a future agenda item.

Editorial correction

Residents were right to oppose Item E.4 as written.

Lost Pines Watch's August 10 guidance told residents to support the resolution while asking the County to use its existing tools. That did not go far enough. Nick Lealos and LIV identified the more fundamental problem: the draft itself could have reinforced an unnecessarily narrow account of county authority. We agree with the call to table it, and we have corrected the current Action Center and added notices to the earlier updates.

August 10 outcome

The motion was tabled after strong community input.

Bastrop County Commissioners Court did not adopt Item E.4. The tabling followed substantial resident testimony and written submissions that challenged both the rush and the substance of the proposal. Strong community participation helped put the central issue in the open: asking the Legislature for more authority should not require the County to minimize tools it may already possess.

This is a procedural pause, not a Pacifico denial, moratorium, permit decision, or tax-abatement vote. Any revised proposal should return only after public notice, careful legal review, and enough time for residents to examine the actual text.

Thursday, August 13 · 5:30 p.m.

Pacifico is not on BISD's agenda. Residents may still speak.

Superintendent Kristi Lee recently wrote that because Pacifico is not posted, “there can be no discussion by law.” That is true only as to substantive Board deliberation or action. It does not bar residents from raising Pacifico or JETI application J0049 during Open Forum.

“At regular Board meetings, the Board shall permit public comment, regardless of whether the topic is an item on the agenda.”

That is BISD's own BED(LOCAL) policy. Trustees cannot debate or vote on the unposted subject that evening, but Texas law allows them to provide specific facts, recite existing policy, or propose placing the subject on a future agenda.

Arrive early and sign up before 5:30 p.m. The regular meeting begins at the Jerry Fay Wilhelm Center for the Performing Arts, 1401 Cedar Street in Bastrop. Comments are ordinarily limited to three minutes.

  1. Correct the record. Residents may raise Pacifico during Open Forum.
  2. Put J0049 on a future agenda. Give the public a real opportunity to hear and question BISD's position.
  3. Publish the complete analysis. Release the MoakCasey contract, scope, communications, and financial work before any hearing or vote.
  4. Evaluate student health. Require an independent cumulative air-and-health review before considering a subsidy.
  5. Do not subsidize an incomplete record. BISD can approve or reject the requested JETI agreement.
The community record

Two submissions explain why tabling was the responsible vote.

Working draft · not adopted

Nick Lealos's safety-and-compliance proposal

Nick's alternative working draft proposes a pause for safety and compliance review, Fire Marshal evaluation, public disclosures, a resident advisory committee, and independent review of qualifying battery storage. It points toward affirmative action, but it remains unfinished and contains drafting errors. It is a proposal for legal review—not a final statement of law.

Written public comment

LIV's request to table and reassess existing authority

LIV's comments urged the Court not to lock itself into language suggesting that incentives are its only meaningful leverage. The document was submitted by attorney Michele G. Gangnes for LIV; the supplied PDF is associated with Linda Curtis. It calls for a slower, legally grounded review of fire safety, BESS, public health, wastewater, floodplain, road, access, and incentive tools.

Read LIV's August 10 comments
Our aligned position

Use existing tools now, preserve every option, and still seek stronger state law.

Texas counties do not have city-style general zoning authority, but that is not the same as having no responsibility or leverage. County counsel should publicly evaluate each relevant statute and defend a targeted, project-specific safety and compliance process instead of beginning with a broad concession of powerlessness.

  1. Use fire-safety review. Local Government Code §352.016 authorizes county Fire Marshal inspections and, in specified circumstances, plan review for fire or life-safety hazards.
  2. Trigger BESS safeguards where they apply. Utilities Code Chapter 187 gives a county a defined route to request an operator-funded independent evaluation for a qualifying facility in an unincorporated area.
  3. Review every other existing tool. County counsel should analyze public-health, OSSF, floodplain, drainage, road, access, emergency-management, records, and enforcement authority on the actual project facts.
  4. Withhold discretionary subsidies. No Pacifico tax abatement or Chapter 381 agreement should advance without a complete public record, independent review, and enforceable protections.
  5. Keep asking Austin for stronger authority. Expanded county powers remain necessary, but the request should complement—not erase—authority already available.
Why the BESS document matters

Austin County chose an affirmative approach—but its order is precedent, not a blank check.

On July 27, Austin County adopted and signed a BESS and data-center moratorium that calls for equipment review, Fire Marshal involvement, an independent BESS evaluation, public-health review, and an energy development-zone study. That separate county's action is important evidence that “counties can do nothing” is not the only position Texas officials are taking.

The filed copy also contains obvious placeholders and drafting defects, and no court ruling establishes that every asserted provision is valid. Bastrop County should study the order, obtain its own legal analysis, and draft with much greater care.

Pacifico's May concept plan labels battery storage, but the public record does not disclose final capacity, chemistry, operator, product, or placement. Chapter 187 applies only if the installation meets its statutory definition and thresholds—including at least 1 MWh and the applicable 2027-or-later commercial-operation timing. A data center is not automatically a BESS; the actual storage equipment controls.

Read Austin County's signed order
KXAN interview · corrected full tract · parcel record · firsthand video

Earth Native and the Wallace Ranch share a property line.

KXAN's report lets viewers hear directly from Dave Scott, founder of Earth Native Wilderness School, about what is at stake beside the proposed development. The report and Earth Native's public materials describe an approximately 80-acre wooded campus used for outdoor education, camps, and Wild Life Forest Preschool. Dave has since clarified that Earth Native's full contiguous property footprint is larger than that public campus description.

Our first parcel plot omitted the 24.885-acre parcel at 137 Woodview Lane, held of record by Shannon David Scott. The corrected four-parcel plot was still incomplete: Dave identified one more adjoining tract, and Bastrop CAD confirms parcel 27574 is a 24.836-acre Earth Native Inc. parcel connected to parcel 28022 on the southeast.

The full owner-identified tract now contains five contiguous parcels: 37223, 46431, 22796, 28022, and 27574. They total 103.721CAD legal acres. The additional parcel does not touch the 1,451.61-acre Wallace/J0049 parcel 24484, so the verified common boundary remains approximately 2,160 feet, or 0.41 mile.

Corrected five-parcel tractThe full tract shares about 0.41 mile
Owner map + Bastrop CAD
Full five-parcel Earth Native tract and its shared boundary with the Wallace RanchA parcel plot shows the five-parcel, 103.721-acre contiguous Earth Native property footprint adjoining Wallace Ranch parcel 24484 along an approximately 2,160-foot shared boundary. The Wallace parcel is included in Pacifico's J0049 filing. The southeastern Earth Native parcel expands the acreage but does not touch the Wallace parcel.Wallace RanchJ0049 parcel 24484Earth Native5 parcels · 103.721 acshared property line · ≈2,160 ftN
Full owner-identified tract5 parcels103.721 CAD legal acres; the public campus description remains approximately 80 acres.
Highlighted common boundary≈2,160 ftAbout 0.41 mile of shared parcel line.
Corrected using Dave Scott's owner-supplied clarification and Bastrop CAD ParcelARI geometry. The full tract includes Earth Native Inc. parcels 37223, 46431, 28022, and 27574 plus the 137 Woodview parcel 22796 held by Shannon David Scott. Parcels 37223 and 22796 meet Wallace/J0049 parcel 24484 along the highlighted line; parcel 27574 connects to parcel 28022 on the southeast and does not extend that common boundary. County GIS is approximate, not a boundary survey. The map establishes adjacency, not future equipment locations, setbacks, or how every acre is used.
Firsthand video · August 11, 2026

Standing at Earth Native, looking across the shared boundary

Dave Scott recorded this view Tuesday morning from Earth Native's property, looking across the property line toward the proposed Pacifico site.

Video supplied by Dave Scott and published with permission. The open pasture beyond the fence is within the Wallace parcel included in J0049. The clip documents the landscape as it appeared that morning; it does not establish where Pacifico would ultimately place specific equipment within the much larger filed parcel.
What to ask next

Do not bring Item E.4 back unchanged.

At upcoming meetings, keep the message specific: use existing lawful tools, fund the expertise needed to use them, publish the project record, disclose all batteries and hazardous materials, and do not subsidize Pacifico while the full-buildout impacts remain unresolved.

Aug. 12 · 8:00 p.m.

LIV community Zoom

Compare the tabled resolution with existing county tools and coordinate specific requests for Thursday's meetings.

Event details and RSVP
Aug. 13 · 9:00 a.m.

LEPC

Request a public inventory of batteries, fuels, hazardous materials, fire water, access, evacuation, and multi-agency response needs.

Aug. 13 · 9:00 a.m.

County budget session

Ask the Court to fund legal, Fire Marshal, emergency-planning, records, and independent technical capacity for large industrial review.

Aug. 13 · 5:30 p.m.

Bastrop ISD

Ask trustees to publish every J0049 filing and promise no agreement before meaningful public review of site alternatives and full impacts.

Aug. 20 · 6:00 p.m.

LIV Cedar Creek forum

Compare the legal record, organize permit-specific follow-up, and develop a careful replacement proposal with public review.

“Please do not return Item E.4 unchanged. Direct county counsel and the Fire Marshal to identify every existing project-specific tool, publish that analysis, require full battery and hazardous-material disclosures, and withhold discretionary incentives while the record is incomplete.”
Open the corrected meeting guide

Source and attribution notes

The meeting outcome is reported by KVUE. Nick's file metadata identifies Nick Lealos as creator. LIV's PDF text identifies Michele G. Gangnes as the submitting attorney; the supplied file is associated with Linda Curtis. Austin County's PDF is a signed order from a different county and is not presented as controlling law in Bastrop County. The shared-boundary graphic uses Dave Scott's owner-supplied tract clarifications plus Bastrop CAD ParcelARI geometry for parcels 37223, 46431, 22796, 28022, and 27574, and Wallace/J0049 parcel 24484. Parcel 22796 is held of record by Shannon David Scott and carries Earth Native's published 137 Woodview entrance; parcel 27574 is held by Earth Native Inc. The acreage and common-boundary length are rounded GIS calculations, not survey measurements. Dave Scott supplied and described the August 11 video; Lost Pines Watch did not independently geolocate the camera within the tract.